The inevitable conclusion: "If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result."
Climate skeptics are not necessarily denying that there is global warming -- the climate has always changed.
The point is that the science is not done properly. The data and methods the IPCC based its reports on are not open to scrutiny and review. On this flawed data climate models are based, and on these models governments base their policies in turn.
The strawman fallacy comparing climate skeptics with creationists does not hold. Creationists take holy scripture as a start and try to shoehorn everthing to it; Climate skeptics have no such holy scripture.
Bzzt! Wrong.
The IPCC based its reports in a lot of data open to scrutiny, not only East Anglia's. And even the problems with East Anglia data have been hugelly exagerated. The IPCC meetings were also open to a lot of dissent, particularly from Middle East oil producing countries (guess why)?
And GW deniers do have a basic belief: "you can regulate my energy from my cold dead hands".
